Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-528881

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, water quality impacts on 378 municipal intakes, economic cost-benefit inconsistencies, and the validity of the regulatory flexibility certification, while requesting the agency to reconcile these findings and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Water Quality Quantity
- “clean, cold water”
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads change stream flows, water temperature, and channel shape”
- “protect wild headwaters flowing to both the Atlantic and the Gulf”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “salamander species found nowhere else on Earth”
- “harbor black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat, and the northern long-eared bat”
- “wildlife habitat, healthy ecosystems”
- “pristine trails in the Cherokee National Forest”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “outfitters, guides, and towns... depend on clean, cold water”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit identified deficiencies in that approach”
- “regulatory flexibility certification fails on its face”
- “rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach'”
- “agency should withdraw the certification”

What it names

National Forests: Cherokee National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 For more than 20 years I've enjoyed mountain biking and hiking on the pristine trails in the Cherokee National Forest. I've also enjoyed paddling the Ocoee, Hiwassee, and Nantahala Rivers, and I know what those watersheds mean to the outfitters, guides, and towns across southeast Tennessee and western North Carolina who depend on clean, cold water. I am asking this agency to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place, and I am asking it to answer the specific questions this record raises. Start with fire. The agency justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record says this: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That finding is the agency's own language. DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain how this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement. The water I paddle runs out of those roadless headwaters. The Nantahala holds 14 inventoried roadless areas totaling 52,304 acres. Shining Rock, Linville Gorge, and the other roadless pockets of Nantahala-Pisgah protect wild headwaters flowing to both the Atlantic and the Gulf, along with salamander species found nowhere else on Earth. Across the Southern region, which includes Tennessee, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that roads change stream flows, water temperature, and channel shape, and that water in roadless areas today is largely unaltered. Rescinding this rule puts that condition at risk. I ask the agency to respond on the record to what road construction in these specific watersheds would mean for those 378 intakes and for the rivers that sustain the small businesses I named. The economics do not support this action. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. Meanwhile the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain how expanding a road system it cannot currently maintain is responsible stewardship. The legal history here matters. The record states that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency tried replacing the national rule with a state-by-state approach before, and the Ninth Circuit identified deficiencies in that approach. The Cherokee holds 18 inventoried roadless areas totaling 84,881 acres, including places like Citico Creek and Big Frog Mountain that harbor black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat, and the northern long-eared bat. These are areas of nationally significant value. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies the court found the last time it went down this road. Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification fails on its face. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the permit-holders actually operating in the affected areas. The outfitters and guides on the Ocoee, the Hiwassee, and the Nantahala are exactly those small entities. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the businesses actually operating in these roadless areas, not a national average that obscures real harm. Public land should be managed for access to nature, wildlife habitat, healthy ecosystems, and clean water. By the agency's own words, this rescission is about reducing regulatory burden. That is not a good enough reason to give up protections that took decades to put in place. Responsible management means keeping what works.